We have shown that Joel McDurmon has levelled a false charge and accusation against me. In his Appendix to our formal debate, written months after the actual debate, held in Ardmore, Ok., July 2012, McDurmon accused me of dishonesty, lack of scholarship, misrepresentation of his views, etc.. These are of course, extremely serious charges, but, they are false to the core. Be sure to read the previous articles for documentation. Let’s look at more on McDurmon’s charge that I misrepresented him.
McDurmon charged me with giving “alleged quotations.” Notice the plural form of his accusation. Go back and examine the longer quotation in which McDurmon addresses the Zion issue, (here) you will notice how long it is. And let me say this: I cut and pasted that quote directly from the article on American Vision website! This is where it gets interesting.
McDurmon accuses me of falsely representing him by giving “alleged quotations” plural. Just how did I misrepresent McDurmon in these other “alleged quotations? McDurmon gave not one example, no proof whatsoever of his claim. In fact, McDurmon exaggerated his claim about my so-called “misrepresentation” and “alleged quotations” (plural). And, as his email testified, “I am not sending this to you in confrontation or even to say that I disagree with your interpretation of it…”
Let me summarize McDurmon’s false claims in regard to my supposed misrepresentations of his views.
He said I ignored the fact that he says Zion came in Christ at the ascension, and he says I misrepresented the facts in saying he posited the arrival of Zion in AD 70. As we have shown, however, In truth, Joel McDurmon’s own explicit, undeniable words verify what I said: He believes Zion came in AD 70. His charge against me is therefore false.
He claimed I misrepresented him in multiple “quotations” plural, when in fact, I omitted a few words in one quotation. Remember, he never offered a syllable of proof for my supposed misrepresentations of “quotations” plural. And again, what is so significant is that in private correspondence he admitted that he did not necessarily disagree with my interpretation of his words.
He claimed: “I never said, ‘Zion has been spiritualized and fulfilled.’” Yet, he did say:
Zion has been “spiritualized.”
He did say Zion has been “fulfilled in Christ.” (His attempt to focus– post debate– on his words “as it were” is pure desperation. He seeks to say that “as it were” negates the reality of the actual fulfillment of Zion which he elsewhere undeniably affirms! This is desperation exemplified).
For McDurmon to focus on the precise quote above and deny that he gave it, while at the same time admitting he believes Zion was spiritualized and Zion was fulfilled– in AD 70– is clearly an attempt to mislead the reading audience, escape the force of his own words, and to impugn my integrity.
The facts and the truth is very evident here. McDurmon was entrapped by his own words and his own theology. Entrapped and exposed, McDurmon resorted to the old “debater’s trick” of claiming I had misrepresented him. He denied believing that Zion came in AD 70, yet, his own article, his own words, falsifies this claim. Let me give his words again, to drive this point home:
Commenting on Revelation 21 (which he claimed in our debate is unfulfilled) he says this:
“This passage is describing among other things the results of an historical event: namely, the passing away of the Old Covenant “heavens and earth” and the arrival of the New Covenant “new heavens and new earth.” The New Heavens and New Earth complex is also called New Jerusalem, which is the bride-city-dwelling place of God, or “the church” as we commonly say.
The passing away here refers to the passing away of the Old Covenant order. It is passed away for good never to return, and has been replaced by the New Covenant order. This replacement “event” began with the Incarnation of Christ, and culminated with his Ascension and Session at the right hand of God. The final expression of the demise of that old order was the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70.”
Article can be found here.
So, once again, the indisputable fact is that Joel McDurmon is undeniably on record as affirming that Zion came in AD 70, thus falsifying his claim that I misrepresented him in this regard.
So, in sum, I did not misrepresent him in by giving multiple erroneous“quotations.”
I did not misrepresent his views of Zion coming down in AD 70.
I was not dishonest, or unscholarly.
It is McDurmon himself that has misrepresented the facts, made false accusations and acted in an un-scholarly manner as the record clearly shows.